Kelo — One Year Later discusses “Legislative Responses to Kelo v. City of New London and Subsequent Court Decisions” (for libertarian views on the controversial Kelo decision, see here). As this LexisNexis piece notes, although the Supreme Court in Kelo broadened the definition of “public use” for purposes of the federal standards on state takings, the court also
expressly invited the state courts and legislatures to discern local public needs and, if necessary, implement a stricter definition of “public use” than what it had announced as the “federal baseline.” ... In response, many states have accepted the Court’s invitation to impose stricter definitions of “public use” on their local governments’ eminent domain power by either proposing or enacting statutory reform measures and constitutional amendments.Thus, although many libertarians went nuts after the Kelo decision--most on the false assumption that the federal court’s decisions are sole source for protecting our rights--the varied state and federal responses to Kelo, discussed in this study, belie that assumption.
